Appendix B
NRC Phase II Survey

The first section of this appendix describes the methodology used to survey Phase II SBIR awards (also referred to as projects). The second part presents the results—of the awards, or project, survey (NRC Phase II Survey). (Appendix C presents the NRC Phase I survey.)

ABOUT THE SURVEYS

Starting Date and Coverage

The survey of SBIR Phase II awards was administered in 2005 and included awards made through 2001. This allowed most of the Phase II awarded projects (nominally two years) to be completed and provided some time for commercialization. The selection of the end date of 2001 was consistent with a GAO study, which in 1991 surveyed awards made through 1987.

A start date of 1992 was selected. The year 1992 for the earliest Phase II project was considered a realistic starting date for the coverage, allowing inclusion of the same (1992) projects as the Department of Defense (DoD) 1996 survey, and of the 1992 and 1993 projects surveyed in 1998 for the Small Business Administration (SBA). This adds to the longitudinal capacities of the study. The 10 years of Phase II coverage spanned the period of increased funding set-asides and the impact of the 1992 reauthorization. This time frame allowed for extended periods of commercialization and for a robust spectrum of economic conditions. Establishing 1992 as the cut-off date for starting the survey helped to avoid the problems from which older awards suffer, including meager early data collection

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Citation Manager

"Appendix B: NRC Phase II Survey."
An Assessment of Small Business Innovation Research Program at the Department of Energy.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

Please select a format:

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 135
Appendix B
NRC Phase II Survey
The first section of this appendix describes the methodology used to survey
Phase II SBIR awards (also referred to as projects). The second part presents the
results—of the awards, or project, survey (NRC Phase II Survey). (Appendix C
presents the NRC Phase I survey.)
ABOuT THE SuRVEYS
Starting Date and Coverage
The survey of SBIR Phase II awards was administered in 2005 and included
awards made through 2001. This allowed most of the Phase II awarded projects
(nominally two years) to be completed and provided some time for commercial-
ization. The selection of the end date of 2001 was consistent with a GAO study,
which in 1991 surveyed awards made through 1987.
A start date of 1992 was selected. The year 1992 for the earliest Phase II
project was considered a realistic starting date for the coverage, allowing inclu-
sion of the same (1992) projects as the Department of Defense (DoD) 1996 sur-
vey, and of the 1992 and 1993 projects surveyed in 1998 for the Small Business
Administration (SBA). This adds to the longitudinal capacities of the study. The
10 years of Phase II coverage spanned the period of increased funding set-asides
and the impact of the 1992 reauthorization. This time frame allowed for extended
periods of commercialization and for a robust spectrum of economic conditions.
Establishing 1992 as the cut-off date for starting the survey helped to avoid the
problems from which older awards suffer, including meager early data collection

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
as well as potentially irredeemable data loss; the fact that some firms and princi-
pal investigators (PIs) are no longer in place; and fading memories.
Award Numbers
While adding the annual awards numbers of the five agencies would seem
to define the larger sample, the process was more complicated. Agency reports
usually involve some estimating and anticipation of successful negotiation of
selected proposals. Agencies rarely correct reports after the fact. Setting limita-
tions on the number of projects to be surveyed from each firm required knowing
how many awards each firm had received from all five agencies. Thus, the first
step was to obtain all of the award databases from each agency and combine
them into a single database. Defining the database was further complicated by
variations in firm identification, location, phone numbers, and points of contact
within individual agency databases. Ultimately, we determined that 4,085 firms
had been awarded 11,214 Phase II awards (an average of 2.7 Phase II awards per
firm) by the five agencies during the 1992-2001 time frame. Using the most recent
awards, the firm information was updated to the most current contact information
for each firm.
Sampling Approaches and Issues
The Phase II Survey used an array of sampling techniques to ensure adequate
coverage of projects, to address a wide range both of outcomes and potential
explanatory variables, and also to address the problem of skew. That is, a rela-
tively small percentage of funded projects typically account for a large percentage
of commercial impact in the field of advanced, high-risk technologies.
• Random Samples. After integrating the 11,214 awards into a single data-
base, a random sample of approximately 20 percent was sampled. Then a
random sample of 20 percent was ensured for each year; e.g., 20 percent
of the 1992 awards, of the 1993 awards, etc. Verifying the total sample
one year at a time allowed improved ability to adapt to changes in the
program over time, as otherwise the increased number of awards made in
recent years might dominate the sample.
• Random Sample by Agency. Surveyed awards were grouped by agency;
additional respondents were randomly selected as required to ensure that
at least 20 percent of each agency’s awards were included in the sample.
• Firm Surveys. After the random selection, 100 percent of the Phase IIs
that went to firms with only one or two awards were polled. These are
the hardest firms to find for older awards. Address information is highly

OCR for page 135
7
APPENDIX B
perishable, particularly for earlier award years. For firms that had more
than two awards, 20 percent were selected, but no less than two.
• Top Performers. The problem of skew was dealt with by ensuring that all
Phase IIs known to meet a specific commercialization threshold (total of
$10 million in the sum of sales plus additional investment) were surveyed
(derived from the DoD commercialization database). Since 56 percent of
all awards were in the random and firm samples described above, only 95
Phase IIs were added in this fashion.
• Coding. The project database tracks the survey sample, which corre-
sponds with each response. For example, it is possible for a randomly
sampled project from a firm that had only two awards to be a top per-
former. Thus, the response could be analyzed as a random sample for the
program, a random sample for the awarding agency, a top performer, and
as part of the sample of single or double winners. In addition, the database
allows examination of the responses for the array of potential explanatory
or demographic variables.
• Total Number of Surveys. The approach described above generated
a sample of 6,410 projects and 4,085 firm surveys—an average of 1.6
award surveys per firm. Each firm receiving at least one project survey
also received a firm survey.1 Although this approach sampled more than
57 percent of the awards, multiple award winners, on average, were asked
to respond to surveys covering about 20 percent of their projects.
Administration of the Survey
The questionnaire drew extensively from the one used in the 1999 National
Research Council assessment of SBIR at the Department of Defense, The Small
Business Innoation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of
Defense Fast Track Initiatie.2 That questionnaire in turn built upon the ques-
tionnaire for the 1991 GAO SBIR study. Twenty-four of the 29 questions on the
earlier NRC study were incorporated. The researchers added 24 new questions
to attempt to understand both commercial and noncommercial aspects, including
knowledge base impacts, of SBIR, and to gain insight into impacts of program
management. Potential questions were discussed with each agency, and their
1For NRC Firm Survey results, see National Research Council, An Assessment of The Small
Business Innoation Research Program, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, 2008.
2National Research Council, The Small Business Innoation Research Program: An Assessment of
the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiatie, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2000.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
input was considered. In determining questions that should be in the survey, the
research team also considered which issues and questions were best examined in
the case studies and other research methodologies. Many of the resultant 32 Phase
II Survey questions and 15 Firm Survey questions had multiple parts.
The surveys were administered online, using a Web server. The formatting,
encoding and administration of the survey was subcontracted to BRTRC, Inc.,
of Fairfax, Virginia.
There are many advantages to online surveys (including cost, speed, and
possibly response rates). Response rates become clear fairly quickly, and can
rapidly indicate needed follow up for nonrespondents. Hyperlinks provide ampli-
fying information, and built-in quality checks control the internal consistency of
the responses. Finally, online surveys allow dynamic branching of question sets,
with some respondents answering selected subsets of questions but not others,
depending on prior responses.
Prior to the survey, we recognized two significant advantages of a paper sur-
vey over an online one. For every firm (and thus every award), the agencies had
provided a mailing address. Thus surveys could be addressed to the firm president
or CEO at that address. That senior official could then forward the survey to the
correct official within the firm for completion. For an online survey we needed to
know the email address of the correct official. Also each firm needed a password
to protect its answers. We had an SBIR point of contact (POC) and an email
address and a password for every firm, which had submitted for a DoD SBIR
1999 survey. However, we had only limited email addresses and no passwords
for the remainder of the firms. For many, the email addresses that we did have
were those of principal investigators rather than an official of the firm. The deci-
sion to use an online survey meant that the first step of survey distribution was
an outreach effort to establish contact with the firms.
Outreach by Mail
This outreach phase began with establishing a National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) registration Web site which allowed each firm to establish a POC, an email
address, and a password. Next, the Study Director, Dr. Charles Wessner, sent
a letter to those firms for which email contacts were not available. Ultimately,
only 150 of the 2,0803 firms provided POC/email after receipt of this letter.
The U.S. Postal Service returned 650 of those letters as invalid addresses. Each
returned letter required thorough research by calling the agency-provided phone
number for the firm, then using the Central Contractor Registration database,
Business.com (powered by Google), and Switchboard.com to try to find correct
address information. When an apparent match was found, the firm was called to
verify that it was, in fact, the firm, which had completed the SBIR. Two hundred
3The letter was also erroneously sent to an additional 43 firms that had received only STTR awards.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
thirty-seven of the 650 missing firms were so located. Another 10 firms that had
gone out of business and had no POC were located.
Two months after the first mailing, a second letter from the study direc-
tor was mailed to firms whose first letter had not been returned, but which had
not yet registered a POC. This letter also went to 176 firms, which had a POC
email but no password, and to the 237 newly corrected addresses. The large
number of letters (277) from this second mailing that were returned by the U.S.
Postal Service indicated that there were more bad addresses in the first mailing
than were indicated by its returned mail. (If the initial letter was inadvertently
delivered, it may have been thrown away.) Of the 277 returned second letters, 58
firms were located using the search methodology described above. These firms
were asked on the phone to go to the registration Web site to enter POC/email/
password. A total of 93 firms provided POC/email/password on the registration
site subsequent to the second mailing. Three additional firms were identified as
out of business.
The final mailing, a week before survey, was sent to those firms that had
not received either of the first two letters. It announced the study/survey and
requested support of the 1,888 CEOs for which we had assumed good POC/email
information from the DoD SBIR submission site. That letter asked the recipients
to provide new contact information at the DoD submission site if the firm infor-
mation had changed since their last submission. One hundred seventy-three of
these letters were returned. We were able to find new addresses for 53 of these,
and to ask those firms to update their information. One hundred fifteen firms
could not be found, and 5 more were identified as out of business.
The three mailings had demonstrated that at least 1,100 (27 percent) of the
mailing addresses were in error, 734 of which firms could not be found, and 18
were reported to be out of business.
Outreach by Email
We began Internet contact by emailing the 1,888 DoD POCs to verify their
email addresses and to give them an opportunity to identify a new POC. Four
hundred ninety-four of those emails bounced. The next email went to 788 email
addresses that we had received from agencies as PI email addresses. We asked
that the PI have the correct company POCs identify themselves at the NAS
Update registration site. One hundred eighty-eight of these emails bounced. After
a more detailed search of the list used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
to send out their survey, we identified 83 additional PIs and sent them the PI email
discussed above. Email to the POCs not on the DoD Submission site resulted in
110 more POCs/emails/passwords being registered on the NAS registration site.
We began the survey at the end of February with an email to 100 POCs as
a beta test and followed that with another email to 2,041 POCs (total of 2,141)
a week later.

OCR for page 135
0 APPENDIX B
Survey Responses
By August 5, 2005, five months after release of the survey, 1,239 firms had
begun and 1,149 firms had completed at least 14 of 15 questions on the Firm
Survey. Project surveys were begun on 1,916 Phase II awards. Of the 4,085 firms
that received Phase II SBIR awards from DoD, NIH, NASA, NSF, or DoE from
1992 to 2001, an additional 7 firms were identified as out of business (total of 25),
and no email addresses could be found for 893. For an additional 500 firms, the
best email addresses that were found were also undeliverable. These 1,418 firms
could not be contacted and thus had no opportunity to complete the surveys. Of
these firms, 585 had mailing addresses known to be bad. The 1,418 firms that
could not be contacted were responsible for 1,885 of the individual awards in
the sample.
Using the same methodology as the GAO had used in the 1992 report
of their 1991 survey of SBIR, undeliverables and out of business firms were
eliminated prior to determining the response rate. Although 4,085 firms were sur-
veyed, 1,418 firms were eliminated as described. This left 2,667 firms, of which
1,239 responded, representing a 46 percent response rate by firms,4 which could
respond. Similarly, when the awards, which were won by firms in the undeliver-
able category, were eliminated (6,408 minus 1,885), this left 4,523 projects, of
which 1,916 responded, representing a 42 percent response rate. Table App-B-1
displays by agency the number of Phase II awards in the sample, the number
of those awards, which by having good email addresses had the opportunity to
respond, and the number that responded.5 Percentages displayed are the percent-
age of awards with good addresses, the percentage of the sample that responded,
and the responses as a percentage of awards with the opportunity to respond.
The NRC Methodology report had assumed a response rate of about 20
percent. Considering the length of the survey and its voluntary nature, the rate
achieved was relatively high and reflects both the interest of the participants in
the SBIR program and the extensive follow-up efforts. At the same time, the pos-
sibility of response biases that could significantly affect the survey results must
be recognized. For example, it may be possible that some of the firms that could
not be found have been unsuccessful and folded. It may also be possible that
unsuccessful firms were less likely to respond to the survey.
4Firm information and response percentages are not displayed in Table App-B-1, which displays
by agency, since many firms received awards from multiple agencies.
5The average firm size for awards, which responded, was 37 employees. Nonresponding awards
came from firms that averaged 38 employees. Since responding Phase IIs were more generally more
recent than nonresponding, and awards have gradually grown in size, the difference in average award
size ($655,525 for responding and $649,715 for nonresponding) seems minor.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
NRC Phase II Survey Results
NOTE: RESuLTS ARE FOR DOE. SuRVEY RESPONSES APPEAR IN
BOLD, AND EXPLANATORY NOTES ARE IN A TYPEWRITER FONT.
Project Information 157 respondents answered the first question.
Since respondents are directed to skip certain questions based
on prior answers, the number that responded varies by question.
Also, some respondents did not complete their surveys. 148 com-
pleted all applicable questions. For computation of averages, such
as average sales, the denominator used was 157, the number of
respondents who answered the first question. Where appropriate,
the basis for calculations is provided after the question.
PROPOSAL TITLE:
AGENCY: DoE
TOPIC NuMBER:
PHASE II CONTRACT/GRANT NuMBER:
Part I. Current status of the Project.
1. What is the current status of the project funded by the referenced SBIR
award? Select the one best answer. Percentages are based on the 157
respondents who answered this question.
a. 3% Project has not yet completed Phase II. Go to question .
b. 21% Efforts at this company have been discontinued. No sales or addi-
tional funding resulted from this project. Go to question .
c. 17% Efforts at this company have been discontinued. The project did
result in sales, licensing of technology, or additional funding. Go to ques-
tion .
d. 17% Project is continuing post-Phase II technology development. Go to
question .
e. 18% Commercialization is underway. Go to question .
f. 24% Products/Processes/ Services are in use by target population/cus-
tomer/consumers. Go to question .
2. Did the reasons for discontinuing this project include any of the following?
PLEASE SELECT YES OR NO FOR EACH REASON AND NOTE THE ONE
PRIMARY REASON.
59 projects were discontinued. The % below is the percent of
the discontinued projects that responded with the indicated
response.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
Primary
Yes No Reason
a. Technical failure or difficulties 41% 59% 25%
b. Market demand too small 54% 46% 32%
c. Level of technical risk too high 24% 76% 2%
d. Not enough funding 53% 47% 12%
e. Company shifted priorities 27% 73% 7%
f. Principal investigator left 10% 90% 3%
g. Project goal was achieved (e.g., prototype delivered for 49% 51% 5%
federal agency use)
h. Licensed to another company 10% 90% 7%
i. Product, process, or service not competitive 31% 69% 5%
j. Inadequate sales capability 10% 90% 0%
k. Other (please specify): _____________________________ 7% 93% 2%
The next question to be answered depends on the answer to Question . If c., go
to Question . If b, skip to Question .
Part II. Commercialization activities and planning.
Questions 3-7 concern actual sales to date resulting from the technology devel-
oped during this project. Sales includes all sales of a product, process, or service,
to federal or private sector customers resulting from the technology developed
during this Phase II project. A sale also includes licensing, the sale of technology
or rights, etc.
3. Has your company and/or licensee had any actual sales of products, proc-
esses, services or other sales incorporating the technology developed during
this project? Select all that apply. This question was not answered
for those projects still in Phase II (3%) or for projects, which
were discontinued without sales or additional funding (21%).
The denominator for the percentages below is all projects that
answered the survey. Only 76% of all projects, which answered
the survey, could respond to this question.
16%
a. No sales to date, but sales are expected. Skip to Question
7%
b. No sales to date nor are sales expected. Skip to Question
39%
c. Sales of product(s)
9%
d. Sales of process(es)
22%
e. Sales of services(s)
11%
f. Other sales (e.g. rights to technology, licensing, etc.)
From the combination of responses 1b, 3a and 3b, we can con-
clude that 28% had no sales and expect none, and that 18%
had no sales but expect sales.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
4. For your company and/or your licensee(s), when did the first sale occur, and
what is the approximate amount of total sales resulting from the technology
developed during this project? If multiple SBIR awards contributed to the
ultimate commercial outcome, report only the share of total sales appropriate
to this SBIR project. Enter the requested information for your company in
the first column and, if applicable and if known, for your licensee(s) in the
second column. Enter approximate dollars. If none, enter 0 (zero)
Your Company Licensee(s)
a. Year when first sale occurred
50% reported a year of first sale. 50% of these first sales occurred in
2000 or later. 19% reported a licensee year of first sale. 67% of these
first sales occurred in 2000 or later.
b. Total Sales Dollars of Product (s) Process(es) $ 582,783 $267,535
or Service(s) to date. (average of 157 survey respondents)
Although 82 reported a year of first sale, only 74 reported sales >0.
Their average sales were $ 1,115,817. 47% of the total sales dollars
were due to 4 projects, each of which had $5,500,000 or more in sales.
The highest reporting project had $17,515,000 in sales. Similarly
of the 30 projects that reported a year of first licensee sale, only 7
reported actual licensee sales >0. Their average sales were $6,000,429.
76% of the total sales dollars was due to projects, each of which had
23,000,000 or more licensee sales. The highest reporting project had
31,926,000 in licensee sales.
$ 45,556 $ 2,675
c. Other Total Sales Dollars (e.g., Rights to
technology, Sale of spin-off company, etc.) to date (average of 157
survey respondents)
Combining the responses for b and c, the average for each of the 157
projects that responded to the survey is thus sales of over $625,000
by the SBIR company and over $270,000 in sales by licensees.
Display this box for Questions 4 & 5 if project commercialization
is known.
Your company reported sales information to DoD as a part of an SBIR proposal
or to NRC as a result of an earlier NRC request. This information may be useful
in answering the prior question or the next question. You reported as of (date):
DoD sales ($ amount), Other federal sales ($ amount), Export sales ($ amount),
Private-Sector sales ($ amount), and other sales ($ amount).

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
5. To date, approximately what percent of total sales from the technology
developed during this project have gone to the following customers? If none
enter 0 (zero). Round percentages. Answers should add to about 00%.6 157
firms responded to this question as to what percent of their
sales went to each agency or sector.
76%
Domestic private sector
2%
Department of Defense (DoD)
1%
Prime contractors for DoD or NASA
1%
NASA
–%
Agency that awarded the Phase II
1%
Other federal agencies (Pull down)
0%
State or local governments
14%
Export markets
1%
Other (Specify)_____________
The following questions identify the product, process, or service resulting from
the project supported by the referenced SBIR award, including its use in a fielded
federal system or a federal acquisition program.
6. Is a federal system or acquisition program using the technology from this
Phase II?
If yes, please provide the name of the federal system or acquisition program
that is using the technology. 5% reported use in a federal system or acqui-
sition program.
Did a commercial product result from this Phase II project? 15% reported
7.
a commercial product.
8. If you have had no sales to date resulting from the technology developed
during this project, what year do you expect the first sales for your company
,
or its licensee? Only firms that had no sales but answered that
they expected sales got this question.
29% expected sales. The year of expected first sale is
71% of those expecting sales expected sales to occur before 2007.
6Please note: If a NASA S�I�� award, the prime contractor�s line will
state “Prime contractors for NASA.” The “Agency that awarded the Phase
II” will only appear if it is not DoD or NASA. The name of the actual
awarding agency will appear.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
9. For your company and/or your licensee, what is the approximate amount
of total sales expected between now and the end of 2006 resulting from
the technology developed during this project? If none, enter 0 (zero). This
question was seen by those who already had sales and those
w/o sales who reported expecting sales; however, averages
are computed for all who took the survey since all could have
expected sales.
a. Total sales dollars of product(s), process(es) or services(s) expected
between now and the end of 2006. $ 551,949 (average of 157
projects)
b. Other Total Sales Dollars (e.g., rights to technology, sale of spin-off
company, etc.) expected between now and the end of 2006. $ 107,325
(average of 157 projects)
c. Basis of expected sales estimate. (Select all that apply.)
a. 12% Market research
b. 25% Ongoing negotiations
c. 44% Projection from current sales
d. 2% Consultant estimate
e. 30% Past experience
f. 33% Educated guess
10. How did you (or do you expect to) commercialize your SBIR award?
a. 5% No commercial product, process, or service was/is planned.
b. 19% As software
c. 58% As hardware (final product, component, or intermediate hardware
product)
d. 32% As process technology
e. 21% As new or improved service capability
f. 0% As a drug
g. 0% As a biologic
h. 14% As a research tool
i. 4% As educational materials
j. 8% Other, please explain ______________________________
11. Which of the following, if any, describes the type and status of marketing
activities by your company and/or your licensee for this project? Select
one for each marketing actiity. This question answered by 117
firms, which completed Phase II and have not discontinued
the project, w/o sales or additional funding.

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
14. If you had undertaken this project in the absence of SBIR, this project would
have been Questions 14 and 15 were answered only by the 5%
who responded that they definitely or probably would have
undertaken this project in the absence of S�I��.
a. 0% Broader in scope
b. 17% Similar in scope
c. 83% Narrower in scope
15. In the absence of SBIR funding, (Please provide your best estimate of the
impact.)
a. The start of this project would have been delayed about an average of 11
months.
50% of the 6 firms expected the project would have been delayed.
33% anticipated a delay of at least 24 months.
b. The expected duration/time to completion would have been
1) 83% Longer
2) 0% The same
3) 0% Shorter
17% No response
c. In achieving similar goals and milestones, the project would be
1) 0% Ahead
2) 0% The same place
3) 83% Behind
17% No response
16. Employee information. Enter number of employees. You may enter fractions
of full-time effort (e.g., . employees). Please include both part-time and
full-time employees, and consultants, in your calculation.

OCR for page 135
0 APPENDIX B
Part IV. Other SBIR funding.
19. How many SBIR awards did your company receive prior to the Phase I that
led to this Phase II?
a. Number of previous Phase I awards. Average of 18. 28% had no prior
Phase I, and another 36% had 5 or less prior Phase I.
b. Number of previous Phase II awards. Average of 7. 40% had no prior
Phase II, and another 36% had 5 or less prior Phase II.
20. How many SBIR awards has your company received that are related to the
project/technology supported by this Phase II award?
Average of 2; 50% had no prior
a. Number of related Phase I awards
related Phase I and another 42% had 5 or less prior related Phase I
Average of 1; 62% had no prior
b. Number of related Phase II awards
related Phase II and another 37% had 5 or less prior related Phase II
Part V. Funding and other assistance.
21. Prior to this SBIR Phase II award, did your company receive funds for
research or development of the technology in this project from any of the
following sources? Of 152 respondents.
a. 26% Prior SBIR (Excluding the Phase I, which proceeded this Phase II.)
b. 13% Prior non-SBIR federal R&D
c. 3% Venture Capital
d. 8% Other private company
e. 5% Private investor
f. 30% Internal company investment (including borrowed money)
g. 3% State or local government
h. 3% College or University
i. 3% Other Specify _________
Commercialization of the results of an SBIR project normally requires additional
developmental funding. Questions 22 and 23 address additional funding. Addi-
tional Developmental Funds include non-SBIR funds from federal or private
sector sources, or from your own company, used for further development and/or
commercialization of the technology developed during this Phase II project.
22. Have you received or invested any additional developmental funding in this
project?
a. 63% Yes Continue.
b. 37% No Skip to Question .

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
23. To date, what has been the total additional developmental funding for the
technology developed during this project? Any entries in the Reported
column are based on information previously reported by your firm to DoD
or NAS. They are provided to assist you in completing the Developmental
funding column. Previously reported information did not include investment
by your company or personal investment. Please update this information to
include breaking out Priate inestment and Other inestment by subcat-
egory. Enter dollars proided by each of the listed sources. If none, enter 0
(zero). The dollars shown are determined by dividing the total
funding in that category by the 157 respondents who started
the survey to determine an average funding. Ninety-three of
these respondents reported any additional funding.
Source Reported Developmental Funding
$ 362,968
a. Non-SBIR federal funds $_ _, _ _ _, _ _ _
b. Private investment $_ _, _ _ _, _ _ _
$0
(1) U.S. venture capital
$ 124,522
(2) Foreign investment
$ 36,908
(3) Other private equity
(4) Other domestic private
$ 224,358
company
c. Other sources $_ _, _ _ _, _ _ _
(1) State or local
$ 2,025
governments
$ 817
(2) College or universities
d. Not previously reported
(1) Your own company
(Including money
$ 156,621
you have borrowed)
$ 13,216
(2) Personal funds
Total average additional
developmental funding,
all sources, per award $ 921,438

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
24. Did this award identify matching funds or other types of cost sharing in the
Phase II Proposal?7
a. 58% No matching funds/co-investment/cost sharing were identified in the
proposal.
If a, skip to question .
b. 42% Although not a DoD Fast Track, matching funds/co-investment/
cost sharing were identified in the proposal.
c. 0% Yes. This was a DoD Fast Track proposal.
25. Regarding sources of matching or co-investment funding that were proposed
for Phase II, check all that apply. The percentages below are com-
puted for those 63 projects, which reported matching funds.
a. 73% Our own company provided funding (includes borrowed funds).
b. 13% A federal agency provided non-SBIR funds.
c. 43% Another company provided funding.
d. 2% An angel or other private investment source provided funding.
e. 5% Venture Capital provided funding.
26. Did you experience a gap between the end of Phase I and the start of Phase II?
a. 64% Yes Continue.
b. 36% No Skip to question .
The average gap reported by 95 respondents was 5 months.
3% of the respondents reported a gap of one or more years.
27. Project history. Please fill in for all dates that have occurred. This infor-
mation is meaningless in aggregate. It has to be examined
project by project in conjunction with the date of the Phase I
end and the date of the Phase II award to calculate the gaps.
Date Phase I ended Month/ year
Date Phase II proposal submitted Month /year
28. If you experienced funding gap between Phase I and Phase II for this award,
select all answers that apply.
a. 56% Stopped work on this project during funding gap.
b. 33% Continued work at reduced pace during funding gap.
c. 9% Continued work at pace equal to or greater than Phase I pace during
funding gap.
d. 3% Received bridge funding between Phase I and II.
e. 3% Company ceased all operations during funding gap.
The words underlined appear only for DoD awards.
7

OCR for page 135
APPENDIX B
29. Did you receive assistance in Phase I or Phase II proposal preparation for
this award? Of 148 respondents.
a. 2% State agency provided assistance.
b. 3% Mentor company provided assistance.
c. 1% Regional association provided assistance.
d. 8% University provided assistance.
e. 86% We received no assistance in proposal preparation.
Was this assistance useful?
a. 60% Very useful
b. 35% Somewhat useful
c. 5% Not useful
30. In executing this award, was there any involvement by university faculty,
graduate students, and/or university developed technologies? Of 148
respondents.
38% Yes
63% No
31. This question addresses any relationships between your firm’s efforts on this
Phase II project and any University (ies) or College (s). The percentages
are computed against the 148 who answered question 30,
not just those who answered yes to question 30. Select all that
apply.
a. 0% The Principal Investigator (PI) for this Phase II project was at the
time of the project a faculty member.
b. 3% The Principal Investigator (PI) for this Phase II project was at the
time of the project an adjunct faculty member.
c. 23% Faculty member(s) or adjunct faculty member (s) work on this
Phase II project in a role other than PI, e.g., consultant.
d. 20% Graduate students worked on this Phase II project.
e. 16% University/College facilities and/or equipment were used on this
Phase II project.
f. 1% The technology for this project was licensed from a University or
College.
g. 5% The technology for this project was originally developed at a
University or College by one of the percipients in this phase II
project.
h. 18% A University or College was a subcontractor on this Phase II
project.
In remarks enter the name of the University or College that is referred to in
any blocks that are checked above. If more than one institution is referred
to, briefly indicate the name and role of each.